About your Search

20130318
20130326
STATION
MSNBCW 10
CNNW 6
CSPAN 3
KNTV (NBC) 2
KTVU (FOX) 2
CSPAN2 1
KGO (ABC) 1
KICU 1
KQED (PBS) 1
KRON (MyNetworkTV) 1
LANGUAGE
English 33
Search Results 0 to 32 of about 33 (some duplicates have been removed)
known as doma, first passed by congress and signed by president clinton in 1996 is being challenged at the supreme court. >> it's being asked to decide there whether or not congress can pass a law that treats same-sex couples who are already married under the laws of their state different from opposite section sex couples. >> reporter: defenders of the law say congress has as much right as the states to make its own definition of marriage. >> doma is important because congress said it was important. i mean we sent our elected representatives to washington, d.c. and they chose to say that marriage is one man and one woman for purposes of federal law. >> reporter: conservatives say the founding fathers never contemplated gay marriage. >> because it's clearly not what anyone understood as marriage at the time of the framing of the constitution. >> reporter: still, same-sex families pay taxes and don't get the same benefits and the issue with doma really gets complicated if they have children who are also excluded from benefits. >> when we have kids i would like them to be born in a pos
that they may create and raise in the best environment. >> reporter: the other case presents a challenge to doma, the defense of marriage act, passed by congress 17 years ago. it blocks federal recognition of same-sex couples in states where they are allowed to marry denying them 1,000 federal benefits that other married couples get. it's being challenged by 83-year-old edie windsor of new york when they are spouse died and left her the estate, she got a tax bill for $360,000. >> if the federal government recognized the marriage it would have been zero. >> reporter: president obama now says it is unconstitutional. >> the basic principle that america is founded on, the idea that we're all created equal, applies to everybody. regardless of sexual orientation. >> reporter: house republicans are now defending doma in court. >> the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. and our financing a lawsuit was to make sure that the proper forum was used to make sure we know what's constitutional and what isn't. >> reporter: the court hears the doma case on wednesda
's proposition eight. let's start with doma. it's the federal law that defines marriage as a union between and a man and a woman. it keeps gays from get iting th same rights. president clinton signed doma into law in 1996. he now says it should be struck down. avery freedman from cleveland, good to e see you. >> hi, fredricka. >> and richard herman, good to see you as well. avery, you first on this. two cases before the supreme court. let's begin with doma. how much is at stake here? >> i think this is one of the great cases that the the supreme court will hear this term. that and prop eight. but doma which was compromised legislation and signed by bill clinton back in 1996 has always been questionable in terms of constitutionality. and two federal appeals courts have held that that law that restricts personnel rights that is by the federal government violates the constitution. it violates the equal protection law. in terms of the significance of it, it's really march madness. this is so important and so exciting because you have the solicitor general arguing against the constitutionality
that the first, at this point $5 million in inheritance is tax free. but doma says same-sex marriage is not recognize at the federal law. she didn't get that federal tax break. that's what doma is all about, as i read what senator paul is saying, he says he would agree with the plaintiff in this case that the federal government should grant her the rights that she has under the state in which she was married. >> interesting. i am aware that in new york today there's going to be a march over doma. there are a lot of strong opinions on either side. what's the next step other than the courts? >> well, it is the courts. this is going to come up before the court this week, monday, tuesday and wednesday they're going to hear proposition 8, the whole question of whether or not same-sex marriage can be banned as it was in california, then this issue of what the federal role should be. this is tough role for conservatives because they've held db the federal doma law signed by president bill clinton, puts the government right if the middle of same-sex marriage saying it will not recognize it e
president bill clinton, as the president who signed the act into law, i have come to believe that doma is not accurate. i have asked jeffrey toobin to explain this. >> all we can say is that president clinton believes it was a mistake and whatever justification he had in 1996 was not good enough, and he, like virtually the entire democratic party now, repudiates it and they want to see it overturned. >> this is not a thumb's up or thumb's down decision, right? this is the supreme court, and so what are we looking at here? >> well, this is a bit of a rubik's cube, and both the defense of marriage act case and the challenge to proposition 8, the case that the law that bans same-sex marriage in california. the defense of marriage act case refers to the federal law that says that the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages even in states where it is legal. so people, and gay people who are married in new york and new england and all of the states where it is legal, they cannot file joint tax return, and they can't get social security survivor's benefits and if the court up
wrote, as the president who signed the act into law, i have come to believe that doma is in fact imcompatible with our constitution. he said, back then it was less of a condemnation of legal marriage and a bit of legal maneuveri maneuvering. i asked jeffrey toobin to explain that. >> all we can say for sure is bill clinton thinks it was a mistake to sign doma. he wrote an op ed a couple of weeks ago saying whatever justification he may have had in 1996 wuntd good enough. and he, like virtually the entire democratic party, repudiates it and wants to see it overturned. >> this isn't a thumbs-up or thumbs-down decision. this is the supreme court. what are we looking at here? >> this is a bit of a rubik's coupe, the defense of marriage act and the case of proposition 8, the ban that prohibits same-sex marriage in california. the federal law says the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages even in states where it's legal. so people -- gay people who are married in new york and new england and all of the states where it's legal, they can't file joint tax returns or get
and hundreds of years. doma is complicated because it does provide protection for the states from the federal government part of it federalizes the issue. there is a chance the court could strike down the federalization part of it. if they do i think the way to fix it is maybe to try to make all of the laws more neutral towards the issue. i don't want the government promoting something i don't believe in you but i don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue. i'm for a flat income tax and we wouldn't have marriage as part of the tax code. health insurance there is a way to write it where it would be neutral and you wouldn't bring marriage into the idea of health insurance chris i want to -- >> chris: i want to go back to the filibuster. after you filibustered for 13 hours you got this letter from the attorney general in which he wrote does the president have the authorization to kill an american with a drone to kill an american not engaged in combat on american soil just is answer to that is no. it seems to me what attorney general holder is saying by implication is that the
's proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. the second case involves the defense of marriage act known as doma. that law defines marriage as between a man and a woman. right now people are lining up outside of the supreme court trying to get front-row seats to history. will the supreme court say i do to same-sex marriage or decide to punt? key players made their arguments today on cnn's "state of the union." >> we immediate to keep the debate live. americans on both sides of the issue are deeply invested on this debate of marriage and don't need a 50-state solution presented by the supreme court when our democratic institutions are perfectly capable of handling the issue. that's what the court will december glide the united states supreme court since the 1880s has 14 times described marriage as a fundmental right. when we are talking about this issue going before the court, we are talking about fundamental notions of people, justice, and liberty. >> >> supreme court's ruling may not come until june but the justices question during argument this week may reveal how they are leaning. bring in no
- or doma - that legally defines marriage as between a man and woman. conservative leader rand paul says he believes in traditional marriage, but not doma. >> "i don't want the government promoting something i don't believe in, but i also don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue." >> reporter: although recent polls show a majority of americans support of same sex marriage, california's attorney general says it's more important to read the constitution. >> "i am absolutely against a ban on same-sex marriages because because they are simply unconstitutional." i'm cristina mutchler reporting for kron 4 news. >> secretary of state john kerry says he's made it clear to iraq that it shouldn't allow iran to use its airspace to ship weapons and fighters to syria. u-s officials believe shipments on iranian overflights are transporting weapons and fighters to the embattled syrian government. kerry says iraq's behavior in allowing use of the airspace raises questions about the country's reliability as a partner. >> a mall in los angeles is open again after more than a thousand wor
-- in the doma case, chris, because there the question is, if a state does decide to grant same-sex marriage, can the federal government refuse to recognize it, and there's a question here about whether the government has always or usually or normally deferred to the states to let them decide what marriage is. and lurking in both of them, it should be warned, is this question about whether the parties have legal standing to bring the cases. that's a much bigger issue in the doma case than it is in prop 8. >> i was going to say, pete, one of the most fascinating things i found in reading up about this is the standing question, do the people have the right to -- it's possible worry looking at this week as a massive moment and it's possible that the justices could rule no standing and maybe not. but let me play david boyce, the -- one of the lawyers in proposition 8 and arguing for and against repeal. let's play what they had to say over the weekend and come back and talk about it. >> every time the supreme court makes a constitutional decision, it's making a decision that certain fundamental rights
calling doma constitutional. >> it's not their rule to decide what's constitutional. doma was a law passed by the house and senate and signed into law by president clinton. and in our system of government, the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. >> and it will. starting tuesday. a constitutional law expert, nyu, and the president of founder of freedom and the right leaning heritage foundation. thank you to all of you for being here. folks who haven't followed this case as closely, how did we get here and why of these two cases being heard so close together? >> beginning with the second question, serendipity they're being heard together. winded they're way up through separate passes of the country to converge at the supreme court. the first case, perry case heard tuesday is a prop 8 case a state restriction on same-sex marriage. whereas the case herd wednesday, the defense of marriage act, whether or not federal benefits vts to be afforded to the same as couples married in their home states. >> the pew research poll showing support for same-se
of it. tea party conservative ron paul explained why he is against d.o.m.a. the defense of marriage act. >> it's a very complicated issue. i've always said the state has the right to decide. and i don't think the federal government should tell anybody how they should decide this. >> reporter: the supreme court will hear arguments about d.o.m.a. on wednesday. supreme court ruling are expected in june. >>> more details now on what the decision on prop eight could mean for california and the rest of the country. among the scenarios if the court strikes down prop-8 as a violation of constitutional rightings, same-sex marriage would become -- constitutional rights, same-sex marriage would become law. or they could decide states will decide. while those results are not clear cut, some legal experts think the lower court rulings would stand allowing same-sex couples to marry in california. >>> david stevenson will have live reports throughout the day. we will go in-depth on the case and gauge reaction from washington, d.c. to the bay area. >>> bay area postal workers fight to keep saturday d
the constitutionality of doma and then after it lost in district court, it decided not to defend the constitutionality, but that a heightened standard of review was applicable, and under that heightened standard of review, it could not pass constitutional muster. when the district court does this in the case before the court now, the house of representatives known as the bipartisan legal advisor regroup entered the case to defend on behalf of the house, claiming that the law was unconstitutional, which meant that the -- that at least there would be an adversary present, which there would be in the court appeals case. in the court appeals by a vote of to do want to buy they struck down the line and the cases now before the court. when the court granted review, it did something quite interesting. although both the house and the solicitor general as well as the plaintiffs all believe there is jurisdiction, the court independently raise the jurors -- the question of whether there's jurisdiction or not ended appointed a harvard law professor to appear as amica as to argue that everybody involved is wrong a
this the best environment. >> reporter: the other case presents a challenge to doma, the defense of marriage act passed by congress 17 years ago. it blocks federal recognition of same-sex couples in states where they are allowed to marry, denying them about one thousand federal benefits that other married couples get. it's being challenged by 83-year-old edie windsor of new york when her spouse died and left her the estate, she got a tax bill for $363,000. >> if the federal government had recognized the marriage, it would have been zero. zero. >> reporter: after first supporting doma, president obama now says it's unconstitutional. >> basic principle that america is founded on. the idea that we're all created equal. applies to everybody. regardless of sexual orientation. >> reporter: house republicans are now defending doma in court. >> the administration doesn't get to decide what is constitutional. the supreme court does. and our phillipsing of the lawsuit was to make sure that the proper forum was used to make sure that we know what is constitutional and what isn't. >> that was nbc's pete wil
clinton, who signed that into law say that d.o.m.a. should be overturned and senator rob portman is citing his familiarity with this issue, his son is gay. how do you think this is going to play out in the 2014 midterms and then subsequently 2016 general election? >> well, alex, we've seen a clear shift in public opinion on this issue over the last ten years. it's been quite dramatic. all sorts of polls now, including the reuter's poll last week shows that the public supports gay marriage even civil unions. even in the south, the majority supports gay marriage or civil unions together. democrats are united on this issue. they say it's a big winner, especially among younger voters, and there's a real sort of active debate within the republican party about how to play this. there's a lot of people saying we've got to stop emphasizing these social issues because they are not working in our favor. however, if you're going to have a divisive 2016 primary, rick santorum is going to want to talk about that and that could really hurt them. >> do you think that will be the case in 2016? if you look
, that is continuing to finance the defense of doma, it is a matter of policy -- >> confusing things here. let's not confuse the issue administration must position that it was unconstitutional. it was not their role to decide what was constitution. it was a lot that was signed into president -- into law by president clinton, and in our system of government, the administration does not get to decide what is constitutional. the supreme court does. our defense of the lawsuit is to make sure the proper forum was used to make sure that we know what is constitutional and what is not. to circle back -- [indiscernible] i wanted to ask you about the debt limit. weeks off, then back for three weeks. >> are you going to stick for dollar for dollar? but dollar for dollar is the plan, and we have had some discussions, but not any big discussions at this point. >> you perceive this whole budget issue, the sequester, has all been pushed up to august, are you open that those conversations with the president, are we gearing down for a showdown in august? >> we have made clear that to get rid of the sequester w
the issue of doma and the administration's decision that it was unconstitutional. it's not their role to decide what's constitutional. doma was a law passed by the house and the senate and signed into law by president clinton. in our system of government the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. and our lawsuit was to make sure that the proper forum was used to make sure that we know what's constitutional and what isn't. , you're to ask you back for three straight weeks after two weeks off. are you going to stick your -- >> dollar for dollar is the plan. we have not -- we have had some discussions but not any big discussions at this point. >> on that point do you foresee now the issue the sequester, government funding bill, debt limit, all been pushed to august, are you hoping to having those conversations with the president once again? are we gearing down to a showdown in august allah -- ala 2011? >> you're asking me a question i can't answer. we have made clear that to get rid of the sequester we need cuts and reforms that will put us o
marriage cases including doma, the defense of marriage act. our panel, newt gingrich, evan byah, jennifer rubin of the "washington post" and, fox news analyst juan williams. you oppose same sex marriage but want to see the court make a sweeping decision or a narrow decision to leave it where it is now in various state legislatures. >> they are making the point, look at the percentage of support. if that is true, over time the american people will indicate that through elections and primaries and referendums. they would be far better off to decide the cases on the narrowest possible grounds. >> chris: you wouldn't want to see a sweeping decision against -- >> a huge mistake and undermine respect for the judiciary. >> chris: senator, how far would you like to see the court go and how far do you expect them to go. >> it means trying to read the mind of justice kennedy and my guess is he'd be reluctant to strike down the laws of the 41 states that currently prohibit same sex marriage or allow civil unions. but, on the other hand, seize the broad sweep of history here, the direction the countr
.s. supreme court. it will hear arguments for the defense of marriage act known as doma. we discuss the issues before the u.s. supreme court. it's the final stop on a long and winding legal road. let's begin with a look at how it all started. the week of valentine's day, 2004, newly elected san francisco mayor gavin newsom, boldly, some said recklessly orders to grant marriage li
act or doma on wednesday. one of the top attorneys arguing against prop 8 which bans sa same-sex marriage in the state predicted a win while speaking on "meet the press." >> every time the supreme court makes a decision, it's making a decision that certain fundamental rights are too important to be left to the ballot box. we've done it with race, with women, with every discriminating class and, remember, when the united states supreme court outlawed the bans on interracial marriage in 1967, 64% of the american people opposed interracial marriage and yet when that decision came down, there wasn't a ripple. >> today more than 160 rallies are planned across the country in support of what advocates call marriage equality. a recent abc news/"washington post" poll shows most americans think same-sex marriage should be legal. a major shift from nine years ago when more people were against gay marriage than were for it. but the poll also shows a significant age divide. 70% of people under the age of 40 support same-sex marriage while more over the age of 6 abelieve it should be illeg
support for gay marriage. come out for d.o.m.a., which he passed. they have sort of come to the light, if you will. republicans i think need to also have a, they need to go to authenticity school or wherever it is that you learn how to do this sort of stuff if they're going to move the party forward on this. >> the fact that they've called this the growth and opportunity project, i think says it all this is about, i know that this is is a strategy document for trying to win more votes. but why not call it something like, what we can do for middle class america. i mean, why not make this about the policies of the republican party that are going to help people, rather than how we can get more votes. i mean that for me said it all. and at the same time that this comes out, you have the republican congressman from tennessee suggesting we should have random drug testing of welfare recipients. there you have the exact opposite message coming out from a republican again, about how they view basically poor people. >> and unfortunately, we didn't have time to discuss this, this piece of strate
and the bipartisan legal counsel to continue this fight, $3 million of taxpayer money to oppose doma? >> well, look, this is a position of our party. but, you know, our point in the report, luke, is that, you know, when i was asked at the national press club i think one of the reporters asked me and he said are you still going to fund, you know, rob portman? my response is, of course we're going to help rob portman. he's a good conservative republican. my appointment, luke, i'm not going to get into this sort of back and forth with leadership, but what i will tell you is i think our party needs to have the attitude that if i disagree with you on one issue, it doesn't mean that you're a lousy republican. it means that you're a good republican. it means we agree on most issues and we need to unite our party. we can't build our party if we're going to cut out certain pieces and certain parts that we may not agree on 100% on but we have to grow. so we have to grow through additional -- >> mr. chairman, you're a relatively young man, 41 years old. do you think the republican party -- >> i'm pretty young
. but what we doma maintain, and think the president is the first do so, is that israel has the rate to independently defend itself against any threat, including the iranian threat. >> i think the only thing i would add is that our intelligence cooperation on this issue, the consultation between our militaries, intelligence, is unprecedented. and there is not a lot of light, a lot of daylight, between our k our countries' assessments in terms of where iran is right now. i think what bb alluded to, which is absolutely correct, is each country has it make its own decisions when it comes to the awesome decision to engage in any kind of military action. and that israel is differently situated than the united states. and i would not expect that the prime minister would make a decision about his country's security and defer that to any other country. any more than the united states would defer our decisions about what was important for our national security. i have shared that with bb, is i said to the entire world, and said to the iranian people and iranian leaders, that i think there is
, will be hearing arguments on two landmark cases. the federal defense of marriage act or doma and proposition 8. so what can next week mean for politicians? mark murray is standing by. so mark, if the court strikes down these laws, do you think that could potentially help politicians in both parties? >> i think you could see more governors, more state legislatures feel like they might have free reign for gay marriage in their states. craig, i will say you're already seeing such a rush on this in states with democratic control. and the change in attitudes has been striking. in our own "wall street journal" poll, 30% of the country supported gay marriage in 2004. that is now a majority. 51%. so a full 20 or more percentage points increase in just nine years. that's amazing in social attitudes and in american politics. >> it kind of reminds me, when roe v. wade happened, a lot of politicians could say this is settled law. so you don't have to spend a great deal of time engaged in debates with a potential political opponent over it. if the court, if it keeps these laws intact, how could that complicate
to look at the proposition 8 in california, and to declare it unconstitutional and also to repeal doma. these are two big cases. and it's going to have a major impact. >> terry, you cover the supreme court for us. it seems to put two justices especially in an interesting position, justice kennedy, the traditional swing vote for the justices. but maybe, even more chief justice john roberts, 58 years old, likely to be chief justice for a long time. you see how support for gay marriage has surged in the last year. even if he personally may be against it, he's likely to look and see, 10, 15 years, still sitting on the bench, it's going to be 70% support in the country. >> there's an institutional challenge to the court in the astonishing speed that the country has changed its mind. the people are way ahead of the elite. the president, when he ran for president was against gay marriage. the supreme court, was in a generation outlawed sodomy for gay people but not for straight people. they overturned that decision. he doesn't want to be that chief justice caught on the wrong side. at the sam
will do. >> i think the case against doma is extraordinary. i cannot imagine the court not declaring it unconstitutional. in fact, i am so hopeful i think we might even get a 6-3 vote out of this. >> bill: wow. >> because in one since you could make the conservative case that the federal court was messing in state's business. from a conservativeview point, you could possibly vote against it. i think the prop 8 case is very much up in the air. it's interesting to me that the court took it on because it could have just let the lower court decision stand which would have declared it unconstitutional for california. why did they check it out? i don't think it's to overturn the lower court's decision and i don't think that we will see them proclaiming marriage equality nationwide. >> yeah. >> what i do think is is that they will overturn -- excuse me. they will affirm prop 8s unconstitutionality for california but they will be doing it as a way of signalling to the country that marriage equality for all is on its way. >> right. >> that will be a great statem
party coming up with a video changing the clinton view on doma and in the republican party, we're hearing from all across the spectrum that regardless of what the supreme court does the party needs to have a more libertarian view on this. republicans are telling us it would be a huge help with fund-raising especially in the big states of new york, california, and florida. if the republican party were to be more open on this. and people are telling us that investors don't want to invest what they think losing national elections which could continue to be the case if republicans stay very narrow on this issue. republicans i talked to even extremely conservative ones, very christian conservative republicans are telling me the polls they have seen in the last couple of weeks have been eye-opening, showing not only that young people very heavily in favor of gay marriage, but if you extrapolate that a little bit in just 10, 20 years, this is going to be 70/30 issue that republicans are going to be quickly going to be on the wrong side of. >> to your point, mike, looking at a graphic.
alimit of all the different parties on that. >> if the high court decides on doma, what does that mean for opponents for same-sex marriage? is that a settled issue, but is it like obama care and we'll still be talking about it years from now? >> we'll still be talking about it. let's let the states decide one at a time and that's probably the best way. public opinion is definitely shifting. maybe ten years from now, they all will be there. >> if the states decide, then we have patch work of laws where you have folks who can get married in california, but if they move to nebraska, are they recognized there? whatever your politics, there needs to be a settled universal law. >> for a while, gay rights advocates have argued that this shouldn't be settled in the courts, because he wanted a victory of public opinion. he wanted states one by one to have their people come over to the right side of the issue in their view. but i think that even andrew sullivan have come to the point where they say the majority of americans support same-sex marriage and those who oppose it are becoming less and
by the state's voters in 2008. justices will also consider the 1996 defense of marriage act or doma that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages. the central claim in both cases is that plaintiffs were denied equal protection of the law. later today a panel of attorneys who have been active in the debate and litigation will give a preview of what to expect by the high court. the event is hosted by george washington university law school, and you can see it live beginning at 4 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> tonight on "first ladies," called a bigamist and adulterer, rachel jackson dies of an apparent heart attack before andrew jackson takes office. his niece, emily donaldson, becomes the white house hostess but is later dismissed as fallout from a scandal. and during the next administration, angelica van buren is the white house hostess for her father-in-law, president martin van buren, who is a widower. of live tonight at 9 eastern on c-span and c-span3, also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> a hearing now by a house foreign affairs subcommittee on the threat of hezbollah,
Search Results 0 to 32 of about 33 (some duplicates have been removed)